98. The State did not file this preliminary objection during the processing of the admissibility of the petition before the Commission. Thus, it is time-barred because it was not filed at the proper procedural moment Accordingly, the Court rejects the preliminary objection. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 99. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties attached to their principal briefs (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). The Court also received affidavits prepared by Maria do Socorro Canuto, José Armando Fraga Diniz Guerra, Ricardo Rezende Figueira, Valderez Maria Monte Rodrigues, Carlos Enrique Borildo Haddad, Luis Antônio Camargo de Melo, Mike Dottridge, Marcus Menezes Barberino Mendes, Michael Freitas Mohallem, Silvio Beltramelli Neto, Jonas Ratier Moreno, Marcelo Gonçalves Campos, Marinalva Dantas and Patricia Souto Audi. 100. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of Leonardo Sakamoto and Ana Paula de Souza, and the expert opinions of César Rodríguez Garavito, Raquel Dodge, Ana Carolina Alves Araujo Román and Jean Allain. 101. In addition, during the on-site procedure, the Court heard the statements of Marcos Antônio Lima, Francisco Fabiano Leandro, Rogerio Felix Silva, Francisco das Chagas Bastos Sousa and Antônio Francisco da Silva, in their capacity as presumed victims. It also heard the statements of André Esposito Roston, Silvio Silva Brazil, Lélio Bentes, Oswaldo José Barbosa Silva and Christiane Vieira Nogueira, as deponents for information purposes. B. Admission of the evidence 102. This Court admits the documents presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission the admissibility of which was not contested or challenged.57 103. Regarding some documents indicated by means of electronic links, the Court has established that, if a party or the Commission provides at least the direct electronic link to the document that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected because it can be located immediately by the Court and by the other parties.58 Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to admit the documents that were indicated by means of electronic links in the instant case. 104. With regard to the affidavits, the Court notes that, despite having been offered at the proper opportunity and requested in the order of the President of December 11, 2015, (supra para. 9), the representatives did not provide an affidavit from José Batista Gonçalves Afonso, and the State did not provide one from Dasalete Canuto Watanabe. 105. In addition, the Court deems it pertinent to declare the affidavit prepared by María Gorete Canuto inadmissible, because the State did not offer this at the proper procedural moment and it was not requested in the President’s order of December 11, 2015, or in the order of the Court of February 15, 2016. 57 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 44. Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 45. 58 25